News Clips

Trump donors beware! President Trump is saying he needs your money for legal challenges to last week’s election outcome, but he’s showing you in the fine print that your money won’t be used for legal challenges. What will he do with your money? Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. During his 2016 campaign, Trump’s campaign paid his businesses more than $12 million. Since taking office in 2017, Trump’s campaign has continued paying his businesses millions more of his donors’ dollars, together with millions of taxpayer dollars paid to Trump’s businesses. 

“It’s a straight-up bait and switch,” Paul S. Ryan, the vice president of policy and litigation at Common Cause, tells me. Such email solicitations target small donors, so for the “overwhelming majority of people contributing … none of their money will end up in recount accounts” or be used for otherwise challenging the election. Rather, it will be used to extend Trump’s influence over the RNC during the Biden presidency and to build up his leadership PAC, which amounts to a “slush fund” for Trump’s personal use. “There is no limit to how much Donald Trump can pay himself or any member of his family under ‘Save America,’” Ryan notes. Earlier versions of the “election defense fund” email solicitations indicated the funds were to be used to retire Trump’s campaign debt. “Presumably he raised enough to retire that debt," says Ryan, "and he’s building this new slush fund.”

“This is a slush fund. That’s the bottom line,” said Paul S. Ryan, a longtime campaign finance attorney with the good government group Common Cause. “Trump may just continue to string out this meritless litigation in order to fleece his own supporters of their money and use it in the coming years to pad his own lifestyle while teasing a 2024 candidacy.”

"He's saying that he needs donors' money for election-challenge litigation, but he's putting the money into an account to be used for his political future," said Paul Ryan, the vice president for policy and litigation at Common Cause. Fundraising limits are higher for leadership PACs than candidate committees. A donor could only contribute a maximum of $2,800 at this point for a 2024 presidential campaign but can contribute $20,000 to a leadership PAC in four, annual installments by that date, Ryan notes. The rules on spending by leadership PACs also are far more relaxed than those for campaign committees and do not restrict politicians from using donors' funds for personal expenses -- a use forbidden in a presidential campaign account. "Leadership PACs are notoriously abused by politicians as slush funds without violating any laws," Ryan said.

It’s unlikely that much, if any, of the money will end up going to Trump, said Paul S. Ryan, the vice president of policy and litigation at Common Cause, a campaign finance watchdog. Ryan, a campaign finance lawyer, pointed out that the governor can give a maximum of $2,800 to Trump’s campaign under federal law. If she wanted more to flow to Trump, she could have directed donors to the president’s own donation site. “In all likelihood, she is keeping this money that she is raising,” Ryan said. “If she were actually interested in raising money for Donald Trump’s own legal efforts, she would use a joint-fundraising committee.” Federal election law makes it difficult for state campaign committees like Noem’s to donate to federal campaigns because it would have to ensure the donations it receives meet federal contribution limits. Ryan compared Noem’s solicitation to Trump’s current fundraising push. Trump’s solicitation, though billed as raising money for his legal fight, notes that half of contributions will go to pay off general election campaign debt. “He’s setting the example at the top of the party, at the top of the ticket,” Ryan said. “It doesn’t surprise me to see Noem doing something similar.”

Aaron Scherb, the director of legislative affairs at Common Cause, told ABC News on Monday that the "petty and unproductive" decision by GSA to withhold key resources to the Biden transition could have the "potential for catastrophic results."  "By GSA not signing off on this, there is certainly some classified intelligence information that the incoming administration would not have access to -- and would potentially not be fully prepared on day one to be able to counteract ongoing efforts from our adversaries like all previous incoming administrations have," Scherb said.    "If the Biden transition team doesn't have access to some of the documents and information," he continued, "there are national security concerns."